Plan would have protected 'religious beliefs on subject of sexual orientation'

Feb. 19, 2014

Written by

PIERRE — A South Dakota legislative panel Tuesday rejected a measure that would have protected people’s ability to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

After more than an hour of at times pointed testimony, the Senate Judiciary committee voted 5-2 to kill SB128, which Sen. Mark Kirkeby, R-Rapid City, called “a mean, nasty, hateful, vindictive bill.”

Proposed by Sen. Phil Jensen, R-Rapid City, the bill would have barred lawsuits against people for “expressing their religious beliefs on the subject of sexual orientation,” as long as they did not incite violence, and ordered the attorney general to defend anyone sued for that reason. It also would have given businesses the right to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In our country, we should not have to fear that we’ll have retribution because we’ve expressed that something is wrong according to my religious faith,” said Mark Chase, a pastor and president of the South Dakota Family Policy Council.

Chase and Jensen said they were motivated by cases in states such as Oregon and Colorado, where individuals were sued for refusing to provide wedding cakes, flowers or other services for same-sex weddings.

But a range of opponents said the proposed law was both offensive and unnecessary.

Tom Barnett, executive director of the South Dakota State Bar, said the Oregon and Colorado cases involved laws in those states that make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. South Dakota has no such law.

“This legislation ... does nothing,” Barnett said.

Other opponents used sharp language to describe the bill, comparing it to anti-gay laws in Russia and Uganda, to controversial pastor Fred Phelps, and calling it “oppressive” and “discrimination.” One said it would give South Dakota a reputation of “hatred and bigotry.”

Sen. Tim Begalka, R-Clear Lake, said he had received “vicious emails” insulting him because he co-sponsored the bill.

“This bill does not promote discrimination,” Begalka said. “Maybe we don’t need this bill right now, but it’s not going to harm anyone.”

But most members of the committee said SB128 would be a step in the wrong direction.

“I am really appalled that we are considering something like this,” said Sen. Jean Hunhoff, R-Yankton.

Earlier this year, the same committee killed a similar, more limited bill that would have granted clergy the right to refuse wedding services where they had a deep philosophical objection. Lawmakers said members of the clergy already have that right.